Subscribe to this blog

Get Email Updates!

Search This Blog

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague." -Cicero

The Magician’s Con: Renewing FISA and the NDAA Under Cover of the Fiscal Cliff Debates

“If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, it
would purify them as the sun disinfects.”—Supreme Court Justice Louis
Brandeis

What characterizes American government today is not so much
dysfunctional politics as it is ruthlessly contrived governance carried
out behind the entertaining, distracting and disingenuous curtain of
political theater. And what political theater it is, diabolically
Shakespearean at times, full of sound and fury, yet in the end,
signifying nothing.Played out on the national stage and eagerly broadcast to a captive
audience by media sponsors, this farcical exercise in political theater
can, at times, seem riveting, life-changing and suspenseful, even for
those who know better. Week after week, the script changes—the
presidential election, the budget crisis, the fiscal cliff, the Benghazi
hearings, the gun control debate—each new script following on the heels
of the last, never any let-up, never any relief from the constant
melodrama.
The players come and go, the protagonists and antagonists trade places,
and the audience members are forgiving to a fault, quick to forget past
mistakes and move on to the next spectacle. All the while, a different
kind of drama is unfolding in the dark backstage, hidden from view by
the heavy curtain, the elaborate stage sets, colored lights and parading
actors.
Such that it is, the realm of political theater with all of its drama,
vitriol and scripted theatrics is what passes for “transparent”
government today, with elected officials, entrusted to act in the best
interests of their constituents, routinely performing for their
audiences and playing up to the cameras, while doing very little to move
the country forward.
All the while, behind the footlights, those who really run the show are
putting into place policies which erode our freedoms and undermine our
attempts at contributing to the workings of our government, leaving us
none the wiser and bereft of any opportunity to voice our discontent or
engage in any kind of discourse until it’s too late. It’s the oldest con
game in the books, the magician’s sleight of hand that keeps you
focused on the shell game in front of you while your wallet is being
picked clean by ruffians in your midst.
President Obama, no different from his predecessors, is particularly
well versed in how to use the theater of politics to his advantage.
Consider that amidst the cacophony of the fiscal cliff debates, the
president signed into law two pieces of legislation, the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act (FISA) and the National
Defense Authorization Act of 2013 (NDAA), which further erode our most
basic constitutional rights by reauthorizing sweeping police powers to
be used by the federal government.
FISA allows the federal government to spy on Americans who communicate
with people overseas, whether they are journalists, family members, or
business associates, while the NDAA reauthorizes the military’s ability
to indefinitely detain American citizens, a provision which first reared
its head in the 2012 NDAA.
While the invasive powers bestowed upon the federal government by FISA
and the NDAA should be cause for alarm, they have become part of the
unchallenged post-9/11 paradigm that disguises itself as representative
government today. This matter-of-fact, all-in-a-day’s work erosion of
our freedoms is no less appalling than the routine, relatively
uncontested renewal of legislation, passed without debate or question
year after year, which flies in the face of every fundamental principle
of individual liberty on which this nation was founded. Such is the
political playbook being used to chart the nation’s course these days.President Obama’s decision to sign the NDAA, quietly and without much
fanfare, while the fiscal cliff debate took front stage is a perfect
example of political theater at its finest. The NDAA establishes a
colossal $633 billion budget for the military at a time when the nation
is drowning in debt, the deficit is skyrocketing, our military empire is
overextended, and America is allegedly ratcheting down its presence in
the Middle East.Despite a late November threat to veto the NDAA 2013, Obama signed it
into law while on vacation with his family in Hawaii. Similarly, the
year before, despite his personal objection to the indefinite detention
of American citizens and his insistence that his administration had
“worked tirelessly” to amend offending provisions, and would “oppose any
attempt to extend or expand them in the future,” Obama signed the NDAA
2012 into law on New Year’s Eve 2011.Sadly, this year’s passage didn’t
even merit that much protestation or concern over its indefinite
detention provision from the Commander in Chief or his cohorts in
Congress.
Obama may have sailed into the White House promising unprecedented
levels of transparency in his administration, but his track record has
proven him no different than his predecessors—content to distract the
populace with a political circus while undermining the rule of law
behind closed doors.
Just as the enactment of the NDAA ensures that no one is safe from
indefinite detention, Congress’ renewal and Obama’s signing of the FISA
Amendments Act, which gives the executive branch broad power to spy on
American citizens who contact people overseas, leaves us powerless in
the face of government surveillance. Making matters worse, there are few
out there—government official, congressman or judge—who are willing to
step up and put a stop to these violations of our rights. Even that
once-vaunted Fourth Estate, the media, which was supposed to act as a
check on the government’s power grabs, has become complicit in
torpedoing our freedoms.
Worst of all, however, and perhaps the most frightening state of
affairs is that resistance to these government programs, decrees, and
laws is minimal, undermined by a complacent citizenry and an uncritical
acceptance of the way the government operates. In fact, the farce of
American democracy, in which our elected officials perfectly mimic the
appearance of representative government while actively opposing our best
interests, has become par for the course.
Thankfully, there are still some willing to stand against the tide. One
notable group, comprised of writers, academics, journalists, and
activists, including former New York Times war correspondent
Chris Hedges, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, and writer
Noam Chomsky, is waging their war against Obama and his minions in
court, challenging any attempt by the government to use the indefinite
detention provision of the NDAA to limit constitutionally protected
activity. For example, it is conceivable that those protesting American
foreign policy, or those who interview suspected terrorists for
journalistic purposes, may be considered in violation of the NDAA. As
Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize winner, explained, “I, as a foreign
correspondent, had had direct contact with 17 organizations that are on
[the US government’s list of terrorist organizations], from al-Qaida to
Hamas to Hezbollah to the PKK, and there’s no provision within that
particular section [of the NDAA] to exempt journalists.”
There are also those within the judiciary who recognize the need for
caution. On September 12, 2012, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest of
the Southern District Court of New York ruled in favor of Hedges,
placing a permanent injunction on the indefinite detention provision.
Unfortunately, that ruling has since been overturned by the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals pending its assessment of the provision’s
constitutionality. With any protections against indefinite detention in
legal limbo, Hedges warned, “The appellate court is all that separates
us and a state that is no different than any other military
dictatorship.”
Indeed, the fact that Americans are utterly dependent on a small group
of judges, themselves part of the ruling elite in America, to safeguard
their fundamental freedoms shows just how far we’ve fallen as a society
and culture. When the rights and liberties which we once took for
granted are little more than exceptions to the rule, open to
interpretation by government officials who can throw them out based upon
expediency, we have entered a new paradigm in America, and it doesn’t
bode well for the future of democracy.